Neo-Nazi shocks pool visitors with offensive concentration camp tattoo

[Morch]

Enlighten me as to the point I missed, please.

Guy has a tattoo that says "each to his own" (or interpreted as "They get what they deserve"...must be a German idiosyncrasy because I can't see how the one equates to the other...no matter), and he is asked to leave a public place.

Seems like discrimination and suppression of freedom of expression.

Please enlighten me.

If you wish to treat it as a meaningless, out of context phrase, it would only be further proof of your usual bias. These were the words appearing over Buchenwald's gate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedem_das_Seine

Actually, "smarty pants" YOU are the one who introduced Israel to the thread. Completely off-topic.

Any subject to do with "offense" + "Buchenwald" + "neo-nazi", it is more than reasonable, in fact almost imperative to think of Jews. But not Israel.

Please, quote the derogatory thing I said about Jews.

Go on...quote me.

Otherwise...shoosh, or apologise.

So "Offense" + "Buchenwald" + "neo-Nazi" makes it almost imperative to think of Jews....and no doubt, on another Holocaust related topic, you'll be at the forefront, complaining how others who were targeted and murdered by the Nazis do not get enough recognition. Have a read and clear some of the apparent fuzziness over who were imprisoned and killed at Buchenwald:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchenwald_concentration_camp

Making it a topic about Jews is your own creation and reflects your usual bias and obsession.

Have a read of the link you provided regarding "To each his own", and see that many think the phrase is harmless as it has been used by large companies for advertising campaigns, if it were not for German Council of Jews objecting to it.

So, this is proof of my bias? Very shaky proof of something unclear. What bias would that be, pray tell?

I don't think you should predict what I would be at the forefront of.....your not very good at it, and it is projecting somewhat.

I did not make it a topic about Jews. I quite rightly mentioned Jews, and some people tried to take me to task about it, as you are too, Hows that?

Not quite sure where in the link you found "many think the phrase to be harmless". It was used by several companies and it caused an public reaction on almost every occasion (and not always led by Jewish organizations). Same goes for a certain student protest. So yes, proof of bias even in reading a short link.

Predicting your posts is about is not much of a challenge, actually. Not that many variations on certain themes.

Of course, you ignore that the phrase appeared in the tattoo with a certain imagery - not much imagination needed as to the reference. Of course, you ignore that those killed in Buchenwald were not only Jews. One of the prisoners, by the way was code-named "Seahorse"...quite a story there. You did not "mention" the Jews, but rather, the whole premise of your original argument would be pointless without the undue focus on the Jews.

[LukKrueng]

This is such an odd anomaly. Western democracies are proud of their freedom of speech and freedom of expression....unless that speech or expression is about Jewish themes. Then, nobody can say anything.

Why is that?

Not a rhetorical question, and not one seeking emotive answers. Just rational answers. (Hint: key word "rational".)

I can stand on my soap box and announce that I hate (Christians, Muslims, gays....). But I can not say anything against Jews.

I don't understand the inconsistency.

Well, you do stand on your soap box here in this forum and mostly say things against Jews and Israel.

[mydee]

I suggest that a rational defense of a curtailment of free speech is that in certain circumstances free speech can be harmful. For example, if I incorrectly accuse somebody of rape and damage their reputation that free speech should be curtailed. Similarly, if I incite someone to riot then my free speech may lawfully be curtailed. In the case of Nazi followers issuing offensive statements in favor of the regime and particularly its attitude towards its perceived enemies including Jews, then it is perfectly reasonable to curtail this free speech, particularly in Germany. The barbaric treatment of not only homosexuals, Gypsies, communists trade unionists and especially Jews warrants this curtailment on any number of grounds. Firstly the Nazi ideology including their theories of Untermenschen has long been dicredited on any rational basis. Secondly, the ongoing trauma to the victims of Nazism including their relatives and friends by someone expressing their free speech, can be horrific. The Nazis not only killed their victims but the survivors were permanently damaged. That alone justifies a curtailment of free speech. Thirdly most of this sort of crap isn't a rational debate on the racial theory, if such a thing exists, but pathetic sloganeering, displaying Nazi emblems and posturing. I do hope this is rational enough for you.

This is such an odd anomaly. Western democracies are proud of their freedom of speech and freedom of expression....unless that speech or expression is about Jewish themes. Then, nobody can say anything.

Why is that?

Not a rhetorical question, and not one seeking emotive answers. Just rational answers. (Hint: key word "rational".)

I can stand on my soap box and announce that I hate (Christians, Muslims, gays....). But I can not say anything against Jews.

I don't understand the inconsistency.

You aren't going to hear a logical defense of such practice, because there isn't one.

[Seastallion]

If you wish to treat it as a meaningless, out of context phrase, it would only be further proof of your usual bias. These were the words appearing over Buchenwald's gate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedem_das_Seine

Actually, "smarty pants" YOU are the one who introduced Israel to the thread. Completely off-topic.

Any subject to do with "offense" + "Buchenwald" + "neo-nazi", it is more than reasonable, in fact almost imperative to think of Jews. But not Israel.

Please, quote the derogatory thing I said about Jews.

Go on...quote me.

Otherwise...shoosh, or apologise.

So "Offense" + "Buchenwald" + "neo-Nazi" makes it almost imperative to think of Jews....and no doubt, on another Holocaust related topic, you'll be at the forefront, complaining how others who were targeted and murdered by the Nazis do not get enough recognition. Have a read and clear some of the apparent fuzziness over who were imprisoned and killed at Buchenwald:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchenwald_concentration_camp

Making it a topic about Jews is your own creation and reflects your usual bias and obsession.

Have a read of the link you provided regarding "To each his own", and see that many think the phrase is harmless as it has been used by large companies for advertising campaigns, if it were not for German Council of Jews objecting to it.

So, this is proof of my bias? Very shaky proof of something unclear. What bias would that be, pray tell?

I don't think you should predict what I would be at the forefront of.....your not very good at it, and it is projecting somewhat.

I did not make it a topic about Jews. I quite rightly mentioned Jews, and some people tried to take me to task about it, as you are too, Hows that?

Not quite sure where in the link you found "many think the phrase to be harmless". It was used by several companies and it caused an public reaction on almost every occasion (and not always led by Jewish organizations). Same goes for a certain student protest. So yes, proof of bias even in reading a short link.

Predicting your posts is about is not much of a challenge, actually. Not that many variations on certain themes.

Of course, you ignore that the phrase appeared in the tattoo with a certain imagery - not much imagination needed as to the reference. Of course, you ignore that those killed in Buchenwald were not only Jews. One of the prisoners, by the way was code-named "Seahorse"...quite a story there. You did not "mention" the Jews, but rather, the whole premise of your original argument would be pointless without the undue focus on the Jews.

"not much imagination needed as to the reference."

On the one hand you concede what the reference is about, yet on the other you condemn me for raising the subject of that reference. Make up your mind, is the background of the OP an issue regarding Jews or not?

If several big companies saw nothing sinister in the phrase, why should I be singled out for being naive about it? A bit picky, you are.

Still no "proof of bias" and still not clear what bias you're referring to.

[Seastallion]

If you wish to treat it as a meaningless, out of context phrase, it would only be further proof of your usual bias. These were the words appearing over Buchenwald's gate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedem_das_Seine

Actually, "smarty pants" YOU are the one who introduced Israel to the thread. Completely off-topic.

Any subject to do with "offense" + "Buchenwald" + "neo-nazi", it is more than reasonable, in fact almost imperative to think of Jews. But not Israel.

Please, quote the derogatory thing I said about Jews.

Go on...quote me.

Otherwise...shoosh, or apologise.

So "Offense" + "Buchenwald" + "neo-Nazi" makes it almost imperative to think of Jews....and no doubt, on another Holocaust related topic, you'll be at the forefront, complaining how others who were targeted and murdered by the Nazis do not get enough recognition. Have a read and clear some of the apparent fuzziness over who were imprisoned and killed at Buchenwald:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchenwald_concentration_camp

Making it a topic about Jews is your own creation and reflects your usual bias and obsession.

Have a read of the link you provided regarding "To each his own", and see that many think the phrase is harmless as it has been used by large companies for advertising campaigns, if it were not for German Council of Jews objecting to it.

So, this is proof of my bias? Very shaky proof of something unclear. What bias would that be, pray tell?

I don't think you should predict what I would be at the forefront of.....your not very good at it, and it is projecting somewhat.

I did not make it a topic about Jews. I quite rightly mentioned Jews, and some people tried to take me to task about it, as you are too, Hows that?

These are the first words of the first post in response to the news item

"This is such an odd anomaly. Western democracies are proud of their freedom of speech and freedom of expression....unless that speech or expression is about Jewish themes. Then, nobody can say anything.

Why is that?"

It seems to pose the question "Why are Jews a special case?" and then goes on to ask for rational answers.

And yet you did not wish to make it a topic about Jews?

Try again, what would you like to discuss? (without, of course, bringing Jews into it).

See my previous post

[stevenl]

This is such an odd anomaly. Western democracies are proud of their freedom of speech and freedom of expression....unless that speech or expression is about Jewish themes. Then, nobody can say anything.

Why is that?

Not a rhetorical question, and not one seeking emotive answers. Just rational answers. (Hint: key word "rational".)

I can stand on my soap box and announce that I hate (Christians, Muslims, gays....). But I can not say anything against Jews.

I don't understand the inconsistency.

I think you'll find in many European countries hatespeech of any kind is not allowed.

[Seastallion]

This is such an odd anomaly. Western democracies are proud of their freedom of speech and freedom of expression....unless that speech or expression is about Jewish themes. Then, nobody can say anything.

Why is that?

Not a rhetorical question, and not one seeking emotive answers. Just rational answers. (Hint: key word "rational".)

I can stand on my soap box and announce that I hate (Christians, Muslims, gays....). But I can not say anything against Jews.

I don't understand the inconsistency.

Well, you do stand on your soap box here in this forum and mostly say things against Jews and Israel.

Please point to where I have ever said anything against Jews.

[Seastallion]

I suggest that a rational defense of a curtailment of free speech is that in certain circumstances free speech can be harmful. For example, if I incorrectly accuse somebody of rape and damage their reputation that free speech should be curtailed. Similarly, if I incite someone to riot then my free speech may lawfully be curtailed. In the case of Nazi followers issuing offensive statements in favor of the regime and particularly its attitude towards its perceived enemies including Jews, then it is perfectly reasonable to curtail this free speech, particularly in Germany. The barbaric treatment of not only homosexuals, Gypsies, communists trade unionists and especially Jews warrants this curtailment on any number of grounds. Firstly the Nazi ideology including their theories of Untermenschen has long been dicredited on any rational basis. Secondly, the ongoing trauma to the victims of Nazism including their relatives and friends by someone expressing their free speech, can be horrific. The Nazis not only killed their victims but the survivors were permanently damaged. That alone justifies a curtailment of free speech. Thirdly most of this sort of crap isn't a rational debate on the racial theory, if such a thing exists, but pathetic sloganeering, displaying Nazi emblems and posturing. I do hope this is rational enough for you.

This is such an odd anomaly. Western democracies are proud of their freedom of speech and freedom of expression....unless that speech or expression is about Jewish themes. Then, nobody can say anything.

Why is that?

Not a rhetorical question, and not one seeking emotive answers. Just rational answers. (Hint: key word "rational".)

I can stand on my soap box and announce that I hate (Christians, Muslims, gays....). But I can not say anything against Jews.

I don't understand the inconsistency.

You aren't going to hear a logical defense of such practice, because there isn't one.

" ... the ongoing trauma to the victims of Nazism including their relatives and friends by someone expressing their free speech, can be horrific. "

Seriously? The ongoing trauma for friends and relatives is horrific?

Wow. I can accept that actual survivors suffered and were victims, and that the children of those that died are victims. But the children of those that survived are not victims themselves, nor are their friends, nor are the majority of Jews whose only connection to the tragedy is a common religion or ethnicity.

This is classic "victim card".

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been removed.

[Seastallion]

Seastallion, on 01 Dec 2015 - 16:37, said:

bangkokequity, on 01 Dec 2015 - 16:28, said:

I think the theme that is often missed these days is the difference between county's charters that guantee "Freedom of Speach" and the right of a business owner to boot you out if you are rude, offensive and making trouble.

If I own a pub, and you walk in with a swatika, and people are upset (including me), I have the right to decide that "Your patronage is simply more trouble than it is worth" ... and show you the door.

If you resist ... well then ... Game On.

You have freedom of speach on public property, that luxury ends at my front door.

Agree...your front door is yours to say who enters it.

I daresay nobody except the local yobos woulde bat an eyelid if you bounced a swastika-wearing person.

What do you think would happen if an obviously ultra-orthodox Jew got banned at your door (not saying you would, but lets just say...) because some patrons were upset at his appearance?

So will you both congratulate the Judge for her judgement and condemn CAIR for bringing a frivolous lawsuit ?

INVERNESS, Fla. (WFLA) – A federal judge has tossed a lawsuit against an Inverness gun shop owner who declared his store a Muslim-free zone.

CAIR Florida, which is the Council on American-Islamic Relations Florida, announced the lawsuit against the Florida Gun Supply in July.

The organization said the Muslim-free zone amounted to religious discrimination, violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

http://wric.com/2015/11/28/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-over-florida-gun-stores-muslim-free-zone/

Hardly frivolous.

But you didn't answer the question...which I'll adjust to bring it into line with your post: What do you think would happen if a gunshop owner declared his shop a "Jew-Free Zone"?

[Jingthing]

My lawyer has advised me not to touch this thread with a 10 foot Pole, but I will say without apology that Nazis are bad for public pools, and also for puppies.

[Gulfsailor]

Although I too believe that Jews are sometimes more protected than other silly theists, be it Muslims and certainly Christians, in this case I don't think the outrage is due to the fact that this Nazi tattoo portraits a dislike of Jews, but due to the fact that it was a display of approval of the slaughter of said Jews and other minorities.

Imagine I had a tattoo artist draw the twin towers on my back with 2 planes entering them. Then to top it of a text that reads 'som nam na' or the English equivalent. I don't think that would go too well either when I walk into Central Park without a shirt on... There should be limits to freedom of expression, and fortunately these are in place in Europe. Either by law or a common sense of morals.

[uptoyoumyfriend]

sea stallion -let me explain,even though you might not get this either

what this is about is the fact that german law prohibits denial of the holocaust that happened ,not exclusively,in c- camps.the victims where foremost jews but also many germans of different belief ,gay,gypsies,commies,intellectuals ,who ever was considered Enemy of the Reich.not unlike isis.they were all innocent victims of a brutal and senseless regime.to go and say they got what they deserved makes you one of hitlers henchmen.

therefore off to the nuremberg trial for you,but as the defendant.

[Seastallion]

Although I too believe that Jews are sometimes more protected than other silly theists, be it Muslims and certainly Christians, in this case I don't think the outrage is due to the fact that this Nazi tattoo portraits a dislike of Jews, but due to the fact that it was a display of approval of the slaughter of said Jews and other minorities.

Imagine I had a tattoo artist draw the twin towers on my back with 2 planes entering them. Then to top it of a text that reads 'som nam na' or the English equivalent. I don't think that would go too well either when I walk into Central Park without a shirt on... There should be limits to freedom of expression, and fortunately these are in place in Europe. Either by law or a common sense of morals.

It would not go too well for you.......but there is no law against it.

Personally, I'd find it extremely distasteful, but I suppose the Charlie Hedbo supporters would have to support you too. Freedom of expression..

[schondie]

My lawyer has advised me not to touch this thread with a 10 foot Pole, but I will say without apology that Nazis are bad for public pools, and also for puppies.

Unless your name is Blondi.

[stevenl]

This is such an odd anomaly. Western democracies are proud of their freedom of speech and freedom of expression....unless that speech or expression is about Jewish themes. Then, nobody can say anything.

Why is that?

Not a rhetorical question, and not one seeking emotive answers. Just rational answers. (Hint: key word "rational".)

I can stand on my soap box and announce that I hate (Christians, Muslims, gays....). But I can not say anything against Jews.

I don't understand the inconsistency.

I think you'll find in many European countries hatespeech of any kind is not allowed.

Unless you are a mad mullah spewing hate against the kuffar

Nobody dares touch them

..or heads will roll.

Nonsense, there have been quite a few expulsions.

[Morch]

Have a read of the link you provided regarding "To each his own", and see that many think the phrase is harmless as it has been used by large companies for advertising campaigns, if it were not for German Council of Jews objecting to it.

So, this is proof of my bias? Very shaky proof of something unclear. What bias would that be, pray tell?

I don't think you should predict what I would be at the forefront of.....your not very good at it, and it is projecting somewhat.

I did not make it a topic about Jews. I quite rightly mentioned Jews, and some people tried to take me to task about it, as you are too, Hows that?

Not quite sure where in the link you found "many think the phrase to be harmless". It was used by several companies and it caused an public reaction on almost every occasion (and not always led by Jewish organizations). Same goes for a certain student protest. So yes, proof of bias even in reading a short link.

Predicting your posts is about is not much of a challenge, actually. Not that many variations on certain themes.

Of course, you ignore that the phrase appeared in the tattoo with a certain imagery - not much imagination needed as to the reference. Of course, you ignore that those killed in Buchenwald were not only Jews. One of the prisoners, by the way was code-named "Seahorse"...quite a story there. You did not "mention" the Jews, but rather, the whole premise of your original argument would be pointless without the undue focus on the Jews.

"not much imagination needed as to the reference."

On the one hand you concede what the reference is about, yet on the other you condemn me for raising the subject of that reference. Make up your mind, is the background of the OP an issue regarding Jews or not?

If several big companies saw nothing sinister in the phrase, why should I be singled out for being naive about it? A bit picky, you are.

Still no "proof of bias" and still not clear what bias you're referring to.

Come again? You are the one who tried to present the phrase as having no context, although hard to see how that could be managed considering the tattoo. The reference to the Nazis is obvious, but as all but apparently yourself agree, the Jews were not the only victims of the Nazis. Buchenwald, with which the phrase is connected, serves as a good example,

The background of the OP is a fatso neo-Nazi displaying Nazi symbols in public. This is against the law in Germany, and for good reasons, not all of them having to do with the Jewish victims of the Nazis. There were other victims and there are other lessons (moral, political, social) which serve as grounds for these rules.

Many of the the instances in which the phrase was used for commercial (and otherwise) purposes were met with negative public reaction, which usually led to said organizations dropping its use. Such things happen in advertising, all over the world, and in more than one context. You are not being "singled out", the context of the reference is clearly pointed at, and yet you simply refuse to acknowledge it (which is the opposite of what happened in most cases described).

As for bias, seems like you hardly miss a chance to negatively post about Jews, whether or not the topic at hand is actually related. My impression is that the only positive attitude you express on such topics is when a Jewish view going against the grain is presented. Not alone in that position, and frankly, not that different from those applying a similar bias toward other groups or religions.

[Morch]

I suggest that a rational defense of a curtailment of free speech is that in certain circumstances free speech can be harmful. For example, if I incorrectly accuse somebody of rape and damage their reputation that free speech should be curtailed. Similarly, if I incite someone to riot then my free speech may lawfully be curtailed. In the case of Nazi followers issuing offensive statements in favor of the regime and particularly its attitude towards its perceived enemies including Jews, then it is perfectly reasonable to curtail this free speech, particularly in Germany. The barbaric treatment of not only homosexuals, Gypsies, communists trade unionists and especially Jews warrants this curtailment on any number of grounds. Firstly the Nazi ideology including their theories of Untermenschen has long been dicredited on any rational basis. Secondly, the ongoing trauma to the victims of Nazism including their relatives and friends by someone expressing their free speech, can be horrific. The Nazis not only killed their victims but the survivors were permanently damaged. That alone justifies a curtailment of free speech. Thirdly most of this sort of crap isn't a rational debate on the racial theory, if such a thing exists, but pathetic sloganeering, displaying Nazi emblems and posturing. I do hope this is rational enough for you.

This is such an odd anomaly. Western democracies are proud of their freedom of speech and freedom of expression....unless that speech or expression is about Jewish themes. Then, nobody can say anything.

Why is that?

Not a rhetorical question, and not one seeking emotive answers. Just rational answers. (Hint: key word "rational".)

I can stand on my soap box and announce that I hate (Christians, Muslims, gays....). But I can not say anything against Jews.

I don't understand the inconsistency.

You aren't going to hear a logical defense of such practice, because there isn't one.

" ... the ongoing trauma to the victims of Nazism including their relatives and friends by someone expressing their free speech, can be horrific. "

Seriously? The ongoing trauma for friends and relatives is horrific?

Wow. I can accept that actual survivors suffered and were victims, and that the children of those that died are victims. But the children of those that survived are not victims themselves, nor are their friends, nor are the majority of Jews whose only connection to the tragedy is a common religion or ethnicity.

This is classic "victim card".

I don't know about "horrific", but that there are a plethora of psychological effects related to children of Holocaust survivors is true. Not necessarily specific, but more a greater likelihood of exhibiting issues concerning depression, stress and anxiety (for example). There is also a body of research which indicates that there are trans-generational physiological effects, again, most are related to stress and anxiety issues.

As far as I am aware this is not a phenomenon restricted to Jews. There is simply more long term research available of Jewish survivors. Related research suggests that the similar trans-generational effects could be found among other populations, other than Holocaust survivors. There are, apparently, certain differences with regard to outcomes, which are related to gender and the nature of the trauma.

Obviously, offspring of Holocaust survivors are not victims in the way their parents were. Then again, seems like it does leave a lasting mark on a person.

[Credo]

I can understand people making negative remarks about Israel and I can believe a lot of them really don't hate Jews. I have trouble believing people making negative comments about Israel and then making veiled excuses for what is a hateful display of antisemitism, trying to say they really don't hate Jews.

It's just a matter of putting two and two together.

[arjunadawn]

This is such an odd anomaly. Western democracies are proud of their freedom of speech and freedom of expression....unless that speech or expression is about Jewish themes. Then, nobody can say anything.

Why is that?

Not a rhetorical question, and not one seeking emotive answers. Just rational answers. (Hint: key word "rational".)

I can stand on my soap box and announce that I hate (Christians, Muslims, gays....). But I can not say anything against Jews.

I don't understand the inconsistency.

You are spot on correct (with one exception; you cannot denounce Islam either. It is literally banned in more places on earth than antisemitic comments ever were/are. As we discuss this the OIC moves further to enact anti-blasphemy laws worldwide).

For a supposed liberal democracy to have zero toleration for opposing points of speech is 100% betrayal of their supposed values. While certainly not an American Bill of Right, the entire premise of Free Speech is not agreeable speech. It is the disagreeable speech that meets in the market place of ideas and is denounced by consensus, not coercion. It is the same thing, more less, in the US. Of course you and I find such speech disgusting- whether a tattoo or verbal. Its not the point. Your point above is the only means of "freedom of expression." Mein Kampf is banned as well, though hardly more distressing and publicly available hate literature.

(I get the whole trying to revise and atone for history. That is not this argument).

[arjunadawn]

This is such an odd anomaly. Western democracies are proud of their freedom of speech and freedom of expression....unless that speech or expression is about Jewish themes. Then, nobody can say anything.

Why is that?

Not a rhetorical question, and not one seeking emotive answers. Just rational answers. (Hint: key word "rational".)

I can stand on my soap box and announce that I hate (Christians, Muslims, gays....). But I can not say anything against Jews.

I don't understand the inconsistency.

I think you'll find in many European countries hatespeech of any kind is not allowed.

Unless you are a mad mullah spewing hate against the kuffar

Nobody dares touch them

..or heads will roll.

Nonsense, there have been quite a few expulsions.

It most certainly is not nonsense. That there have been quite a few expulsions says nothing at all. These expulsions are hardly proportionate to the phenomena noted- self assigned mullahs and clerics spew vile and hate virulently and hardly without redress. In any event, the mere statement "there have been quite a few expulsions" is self evidence of the problem. In one form or another it is the same leverage by guilt politics other groups have used to extract not equal rights but special rights. For example: Antisemitic speech.

I've no use for either but the connection is apparent.

[Ulysses G.]

I can stand on my soap box and announce that I hate (Christians, Muslims, gays....). But I can not say anything against Jews.

I don't understand the inconsistency.

Well, you do stand on your soap box here in this forum and mostly say things against Jews and Israel.

Please point to where I have ever said anything against Jews.

Give us break.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[stevenl]

This is such an odd anomaly. Western democracies are proud of their freedom of speech and freedom of expression....unless that speech or expression is about Jewish themes. Then, nobody can say anything.
Why is that?
Not a rhetorical question, and not one seeking emotive answers. Just rational answers. (Hint: key word "rational".)

I can stand on my soap box and announce that I hate (Christians, Muslims, gays....). But I can not say anything against Jews.
I don't understand the inconsistency.

I think you'll find in many European countries hatespeech of any kind is not allowed.

Unless you are a mad mullah spewing hate against the kuffar
Nobody dares touch them
..or heads will roll.

Nonsense, there have been quite a few expulsions.

It most certainly is not nonsense. That there have been quite a few expulsions says nothing at all. These expulsions are hardly proportionate to the phenomena noted- self assigned mullahs and clerics spew vile and hate virulently and hardly without redress. In any event, the mere statement "there have been quite a few expulsions" is self evidence of the problem. In one form or another it is the same leverage by guilt politics other groups have used to extract not equal rights but special rights. For example: Antisemitic speech.

I've no use for either but the connection is apparent.

They are more than proportionate. But don't again try to shift this to Islam.

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed. Stay on topic please.

[Pakboong]

This is such an odd anomaly. Western democracies are proud of their freedom of speech and freedom of expression....unless that speech or expression is about Jewish themes. Then, nobody can say anything.

Why is that?

Not a rhetorical question, and not one seeking emotive answers. Just rational answers. (Hint: key word "rational".)

I can stand on my soap box and announce that I hate (Christians, Muslims, gays....). But I can not say anything against Jews.

I don't understand the inconsistency.

Why on earth would you want to stand on a box to say anything against anybody at all man?

what's is with you that the Jews are like a bug up your pants? we get it, you hate Jews and everything about them and Israel as well, you have made it abundantly clear in many of your posts, you're always carrying one about Israel this and that and about the Jews, get a life man, and just so you know, in them concentrations camps, not only Jews were incinerated Ok? there were other nationalities that the Nazis deemed to be useless and unworthy of living and they too were incinerated together with the Jews...

"Well, stop acting and behaving as a group of people that is being discriminating against.

stop calling each other using the N word, keep away from gang banging and illegal activities,

study harder and adopt, stop thinking like the world owes this huge debts for having you forefathers

enslaved 200 years ago, the world is sick of hearing about it, the world has learned it's lessons,

so now, move forward...."

That is a post you made a while back about American Blacks dealing with racism. You might want to ease up on your racist claims if you think you deserve to be a victim.

[Steely Dan]

This is such an odd anomaly. Western democracies are proud of their freedom of speech and freedom of expression....unless that speech or expression is about Jewish themes. Then, nobody can say anything.

Why is that?

Not a rhetorical question, and not one seeking emotive answers. Just rational answers. (Hint: key word "rational".)

I can stand on my soap box and announce that I hate (Christians, Muslims, gays....). But I can not say anything against Jews.

I don't understand the inconsistency.

You are spot on correct (with one exception; you cannot denounce Islam either. It is literally banned in more places on earth than antisemitic comments ever were/are. As we discuss this the OIC moves further to enact anti-blasphemy laws worldwide).

For a supposed liberal democracy to have zero toleration for opposing points of speech is 100% betrayal of their supposed values. While certainly not an American Bill of Right, the entire premise of Free Speech is not agreeable speech. It is the disagreeable speech that meets in the market place of ideas and is denounced by consensus, not coercion. It is the same thing, more less, in the US. Of course you and I find such speech disgusting- whether a tattoo or verbal. Its not the point. Your point above is the only means of "freedom of expression." Mein Kampf is banned as well, though hardly more distressing and publicly available hate literature.

(I get the whole trying to revise and atone for history. That is not this argument).

My sentiments entirely. There is a deliberate inversion of fact to support an agenda in claiming Jews are sole beneficiaries of special protection when the liberal left can't even mention the words terrorism and Islam in the same sentence and look for the few exceptions that support their view. I normally lean towards a libertarian viewpoint but would suggest those looking for where exceptions to free speech may be warranted should look at the incidence of hate crimes by race or religion, on this basis alone the Jews do have a case. Edited December 2, 2015 by Steely Dan

[SheungWan]

Bottom line is that some people here appear to want to defend a neo-Nazi caricature of the concentration camps under a flag of free speech. Probably would like to see more of it, of course purely in the dispassionate interest of counterbalancing 'special treatment'. Not confident enough to peddle open fascist sentiments but happy to stand behind those who do.

[wabothai]

Dear Mr. Seastallion,

I think you missed the point. Maybe you try to read the article again and switch on your brain to find the word you are sensible about. Maybe you do not find it, because it is not in the article?! This you may call inconsistent.

Enlighten me as to the point I missed, please.

Guy has a tattoo that says "each to his own" (or interpreted as "They get what they deserve"...must be a German idiosyncrasy because I can't see how the one equates to the other...no matter), and he is asked to leave a public place.

Seems like discrimination and suppression of freedom of expression.

Please enlighten me.

the atrocities concerning the death camps have had a tremendous impact on the generations born during and just after WW2 and still have. I am sure the younger generations are not quite as sensitive to the issue. Freedom of speech in this case is of minor importance.

[up-country_sinclair]

Jo

Jedem das Seine has been an idiomatic German expression for several centuries. For example, it is found in the works of Martin Luther and contemporaries. It appears in the title of a cantata by Johann Sebastian Bach, Nur jedem das Seine ("Let all be paid duly"), first performed at Weimar in 1715.

Several modern advertising campaigns in the German language, including ads for Nokia, REWE grocery stores, Burger King, and Merkur Bank have been marred by controversy after using the phrase Jedem das Seine or Jedem den Seinen.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedem_das_Seine

Please, let's not allow facts get in the way of some poster's identity of perpetual victimhood. Edited December 2, 2015 by up-country_sinclair

[seedy]

One Post Edited - and Replies to it - for Troll / Flaming and language